Case Background
The case arose from NEET (UG)-2024, the national entrance test for MBBS and other medical courses, conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) on 5 May 2024.
The petitioner cleared NEET (UG)-2024 and was called for counselling by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECE Board). After counselling, he received an admission letter and joined the MBBS course (session 2024–2029) at Narayan Medical College and Hospital, Jamuhar, Sasaram, in district Rohtas.
While he was studying in the first year, NTA issued a show cause notice dated 23.10.2024 (F.No.2024/CBI/264). The notice alleged that he was suspected of using unfair means during NEET (UG)-2024 and informed that his result had been withheld until further orders.
According to the petitioner, he never received any such notice. Later, on 11.02.2025, the Examination Controller of the BCECE Board issued Memo No. 188/2025. This memo directed the medical colleges to cancel the candidature of students whose names had been identified by NTA and to inform the Board.
Acting on this memo, the Principal of Narayan Medical College and Hospital issued order No. NMCH/PO/25/84 dated 17.02.2025, cancelling the petitioner’s admission with immediate effect and directing him to vacate the hostel within 48 hours.
The petitioner approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction seeking quashing of the show cause notice, the BCECE Board memo, and the college’s cancellation order. He also sought restoration of his MBBS admission and an interim stay on the impugned orders.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar. The Court considered submissions from the petitioner, NTA, CBI, BCECE Board, the college, the State of Bihar, and the National Medical Commission.
Petitioner’s contentions
The petitioner’s main grievance was that his career had been ruined without any concrete evidence and without following fair procedure.
His counsel argued that a CBI case regarding NEET (UG)-2024 paper leak and malpractices had been registered as Shastri Nagar Police Station Case Crime No. 358/2024 dated 05.05.2024. However, the petitioner was not named as an accused in that FIR. It was contended that, even during investigation, no cogent material had been collected and no charge-sheet had been filed against him.
According to the petitioner, only on the basis of mere suspicion of use of unfair means, his candidature and college admission had been cancelled. He said he had not been served any notice, nor given any opportunity to respond before his admission was cancelled. This, he argued, violated principles of natural justice.
The petitioner further submitted that the CBI investigation was still pending and no final report had been filed. Keeping his career in “lurch for an indefinite period” without any conclusive finding would cause irreparable harm. If, after proper scientific investigation, CBI found evidence and filed a charge-sheet against him, cancellation might then be justified. But, he argued, more than one and a half years had passed since the exam and no such step had been taken.
He stressed that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. If ultimately the CBI did not send him up for trial, there would be no way to compensate him for the loss of years and the MBBS seat. On this basis, he asked the Court to set aside the orders and restore his admission.
NTA’s stand
NTA, represented by its counsel, explained the broader context. The CBI was investigating six cases related to NEET (UG)-2024. One case was based on a written complaint of the Ministry of Education. The other five were taken over from various State governments, including the Shastri Nagar Police Station case (Crime No. 358/2024) registered on 05.05.2024 against Nitish and others under Sections 120B, 407, 408 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
During investigation, CBI had identified several candidates allegedly involved in malpractices. CBI had shared a list of such candidates with NTA and indicated that an additional list of suspected beneficiaries would also be supplied later.
The petitioner’s name appeared in the list sent by CBI. Based on this, NTA issued a show cause notice to him and other candidates asking why action should not be taken. NTA stated that the petitioner did not respond within the prescribed time.
On 01.11.2024 NTA informed the Director General of Health Services about 21 candidates, including the petitioner, whose involvement in malpractices was suspected by CBI. Their NEET results were withheld. NTA specifically advised counselling bodies and medical colleges to consider cancellation of their admissions in the interest of fairness and transparency. Acting on this, BCECE Board and the college cancelled the petitioner’s admission.
NTA also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 335 of 2024). The Supreme Court, dealing with NEET (UG)-2024 malpractices, had held that any student found to have engaged in fraud or benefited from malpractice cannot claim any vested right to continue admission. Action can be taken even after counselling is over.
CBI’s position
The Court had earlier, on 23.09.2025, directed the Union of India to obtain instructions from CBI and ensure filing of a counter affidavit. Pursuant to this, a counter affidavit sworn by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI EO-III, New Delhi, was filed.
CBI stated that information from senior officers indicated a breach of integrity in the chain of custody of the NEET (UG)-2024 question paper for MBBS/BDS admissions. An organised gang, in collusion with students and exam staff, allegedly leaked the paper.
According to CBI, investigation had revealed important material and five charge-sheets had been filed against 45 named accused persons. Question paper copies were distributed at various locations, including Learn Play School, Patna.
CBI informed the Court that CCTV footage from Learn Play School on 4th/5th May 2024 captured the presence of the petitioner along with other candidates. The footage also showed the arrival and departure of accused persons and candidates. The petitioner then appeared in NEET at Tribhuvan School, Patna, scored 205 out of 720, secured All India Rank 955873, and got admission in Narayan Medical College.
At the same time, CBI fairly stated that investigation regarding the petitioner’s exact complicity was still ongoing and no charge-sheet had yet been filed against him.
Submissions of State, BCECE Board and College
The State, BCECE Board and the college took a limited stand. They said the cancellation of the petitioner’s admission was a consequence of NTA’s communication, which itself relied on material collected by CBI. They had not independently investigated the case.
Court’s legal analysis
The Patna High Court carefully considered the submissions and examined the material on record.
The Court first discussed the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vanshika Yadav. There, the Supreme Court clarified that where systematic leak of the examination is not proven, cancellation of the entire exam is not warranted. However, any candidate found to have engaged in fraud or to be a beneficiary of malpractice cannot claim a vested right to continue with admission.
The Supreme Court also allowed students with individual grievances, not covered by that judgment, to approach jurisdictional High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. But it expressly cautioned that its judgment should not be read as a bar on prosecuting those involved in malpractice. Stringent action must be taken against any candidate found to be a beneficiary of malpractice.
The Patna High Court then referred to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pratibha Singh Ku. (Minor) v. State of M.P. [2014(3) MPHT 178]. There it was held that:
the State has full responsibility to conduct free and fair pre-admission professional examinations; this power includes inquiring into all matters connected with the exam even after results are declared; fraud in public examinations vitiates the entire result; and in cases of mass copying, strict observance of natural justice may not be necessary.
The Court next looked at Chapter 13 of the NEET (UG)-2024 Information Bulletin issued by NTA. Clause 13.1 defines “unfair means” broadly as any activity that gives a candidate an unfair advantage, covering many types of malpractices. Clause 13.2 prescribes that a candidate found indulging in such practices before, during or after the exam will be treated as using unfair means, debarred for three years and may also face criminal and other action. Clause 13.3 mandates that results of such candidates will be cancelled and not declared.
From these provisions and the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Patna High Court held that NTA is the competent authority to act against candidates found to have used unfair means in NEET (UG)-2024.
Balancing student rights and exam integrity
The Court acknowledged that the NEET (UG)-2024 paper leak and breach of integrity appeared to be the work of an organised gang involving some students and exam personnel. CBI investigation had already led to five charge-sheets and further investigation relating to the petitioner was still in progress.
The Court noted that, at this stage, it could not say whether the investigation regarding the petitioner was at an early stage or whether substantial material had already been collected. However, it was informed that CCTV footage showed the petitioner at Learn Play School along with other accused persons, which formed a basis for suspecting his role.
The Court then turned to the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21, as explained by the Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. [(1992) 1 SCC 225]. While speedy trial is a right covering investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and retrial, the Supreme Court has also said that it is neither advisable nor practical to set a fixed time limit for investigation or trial, especially where the crime is widespread and complex.
The Patna High Court stressed that CBI investigations, though they may be time-consuming, should be completed within a reasonable period, particularly when students’ careers are affected. Courts and investigators must separate “grain from chaff” so that bona fide students are not punished for no fault. At the same time, those actually involved in malpractice must be dealt with sternly and should not be allowed to enjoy the benefits of fraud, because fraud vitiates every solemn act.
Final decision
On the basis of the above, the Court held that there was no cogent reason at this stage to interfere with the cancellation of the petitioner’s admission.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
However, the Court added two important clarifications. First, it expressed an expectation that the authorities and investigating officers would make sincere efforts to conclude the investigation at the earliest, so that genuine students are saved from harsh consequences of criminal cases that may negatively affect their entire life and career.
Second, the Court clarified that its order does not close the door for the petitioner. Rather, it grants liberty to the CBI to reach a tentative conclusion based on cogent material. Once such material is available, the concerned respondent authorities can take a final decision in the interest of justice. This leaves room for reconsideration if investigation ultimately does not substantiate the suspicion against him.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for NEET aspirants and medical students whose names surface during probe into exam malpractices.
First, it shows that the Patna High Court is reluctant to restore admissions once NTA and CBI material suggest possible involvement in unfair means, even if investigation is still pending and no charge-sheet has been filed.
Second, the Court has accepted that NTA, guided by CBI inputs and its own Information Bulletin, can withhold results and recommend cancellation of admissions where unfair means are suspected. Medical colleges and State counselling bodies can act on such recommendations.
Third, the Court has still emphasised that investigations affecting students’ careers must be completed as early as possible, and that genuine students should not suffer. The door remains open for reconsideration if later the investigation clears a student.
For students and parents, the judgment highlights that even attending a suspected coaching venue connected to a leak, and being captured in CCTV footage, can have serious consequences for admission, pending final investigation.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can the Patna High Court interfere with cancellation of an MBBS admission based on NTA and CBI suspicion of use of unfair means in NEET (UG)-2024 when investigation is still pending?
Answer: No. The Court held that NTA is empowered under the NEET Information Bulletin and supported by Supreme Court decisions to act against candidates suspected of malpractice. Given the ongoing CBI investigation and available material, there was no cogent ground to set aside the cancellation at this stage. -
Issue: Does delay in filing of charge-sheet by CBI automatically entitle the student to continuation of admission?
Answer: No. While speedy investigation is part of the right to speedy trial, no fixed time limit can be imposed in such widespread offences. The Court only directed that investigation be completed within a reasonable period and did not treat delay as a ground to restore admission.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 335 of 2024 (Supreme Court of India) – relied upon for principles on dealing with NEET (UG)-2024 malpractices and rights of tainted candidates.
- Pratibha Singh Ku. (Minor) v. State of M.P. [2014(3) MPHT 178] – cited for the principle that fraud in professional entrance examinations vitiates results and that strict natural justice is not always required in mass copying cases.
- Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. [(1992) 1 SCC 225] – cited on the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 and the limits on prescribing rigid timelines for investigations.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5711 of 2025
Case Title: Rishu Ranjan vs. The Examination Controller of Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board & Ors.
Citation: 2026(1) PLJR 532
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Date of Judgment: 23-12-2025
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
- For the State of Bihar: Mr. Pratik Kumar, AC to GA-11; later hearing also shows Mr. Raghwanand, GA 11 and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, AC to GA 11
- For NTA: Ms. Chhaya Kirti, Advocate
- For CBI: Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Senior Panel Counsel; Mr. Sudarshan Bhardwaj, Advocate
- For BCECE Board: Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Senior Advocate; Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
- For Narayan Medical College and Hospital (Respondent No. 3): Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
- For NMC: Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate
Nature of Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging cancellation of NEET (UG)-based MBBS admission and related administrative orders.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in CWJC No. 5711 of 2025
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
